|
|
The |
|
(The Latest Word provides Sandy's latest observations about folk music and other topics. The main Latest Word page contains a list of additional installments.) MY TAKE ON MUSIC DOWNLOADS At my age, I harbor no illusions of becoming rich and famous through my music. I don¹t expect to be able to rely on it to support me and my family, or even fund my nest egg. I¹m luckier than most—I don¹t have to. Yet. But though I¹m not in it (chiefly) for the money, neither am I in it for my health (okay, maybe my mental health). The life of a professional musician is not merely labor-intensive, but cash-intensive as well. Put aside for the moment any image you may have of high-living multi-platinum rock stars; chances are, of even those apparently wildly successful artists, only a fraction can break through touring, consulting, and recording costs (not to mention major-label "creative accounting" practices) and clear enough money for a comfortable living—without merely postponing the inevitable bankruptcy. (Three little letters, folks: T.L.C. Their balance sheet could serve as a textbook for a course in the fiscal pitfalls of musical stardom.) To paraphrase an old joke: Wanna know how to make a small fortune as a singer-songwriter? Start with a large fortune. Instruments neither fall from the heavens nor maintain themselves Strings, accessories, repairs....the bleed goes on. And for those who wish to become known outside their home towns (don¹t we all?), travel and publicity expenses come into play. Even the most frugal musician needs some sort of transportation, and the romantic days of hitching cross-country with a backpack and a guitar are long gone (if indeed they ever practically existed). Airfares (even standby), train or bus tickets, gas/oil/tolls/auto maintenance, even barebones accommodations all add up, often in excess of performing income. And that¹s just for a solo artist, even if (s)he can bunk down with friends, relatives, fans, or the occasional house-concert host every now and then. Got a band? Multiply those costs by the number of members. You¹ll probably need a van and usually someone outside the band to manage and run the equipment—which only starts with the instruments. Food—did I mention you have to eat? No more Automats as free-flowing founts of ketchup soup, cracker packets, or do-it-yourself lemonade; there is literally no such thing as a free lunch. That wonderful nouvelle cuisine dinner with which the record company woos you? Don¹t be shocked to see it listed as an "artist development cost" when you get the statement explaining why your royalties on your hit record are bupkiss—or negative bupkiss. Oh, and don¹t even get me started about recording costs! And songs don¹t write themselves. It takes practice, patience, inspiration, effort, and huge chunks of time to come up with even one viable song, much less a steady stream of them. Even those with day jobs or day "careers" devote time to their art that in large part comes out of time from which there¹d be a dependable cash flow. Add in the time it takes to perform, protect, preserve, and publicize those songs--and it soon becomes apparent that something¹s gotta give. You can have a successful and fulfilling full-time career in business or the professions, or you can be a moderately profitable and highly reputed singer-songwriter. I personally know of nobody who has managed to do both simultaneously. Either the music suffers, the non-music career is endangered or at best scaled down, or both are seriously compromised. You can¹t put in 8-12 hour days all week and still have time and energy to write, perform and network; conversely, you can¹t devote the necessary time (even if only evenings) to do your music justice and still do justice to your "real world" career. Know anyone who holds down a lucrative law partnership or executive position, or a successful fulltime teaching or nursing job (without flirting with getting fired) and still maintains a minimally renowned, modestly profitable music career? If you do, please let me know so that I may pick their brain till there¹s nothing left but an empty skull. What am I getting at? The unquestionable truth that a professional music career, even if soul-satisfying and not one¹s sole source of support, is work, folks! A songwriter not only courts the muse and entertains an audience, but produces a product that must be ethically and practically treated as a tangible item of not just esthetic, but economic value. I¹m not talking about the occasional gem composed by a talented hobbyist...wait a minute, I certainly am! If a song is so good that people want to hear it—and hear it wherever, whenever, and as often as they want—its creator has a right to be compensated for it, be it by royalty or publishing fee. But there¹s a catch. I¹m not just a musician, but also a music fan. I pay good money (some may say too good) to buy CDs and I subsidize airplay and other royalties by purchasing goods and services advertised on the media in which the music appears. And I¹m with you here...things have gotten out of hand. Say I decide I don¹t want to have to carry 18 CDs with me, constantly changing them, just to hear 18 songs while I¹m flying, driving, or walking. So I go out and buy blank media; part of the purchase price goes to the RIAA, presumably distributed to its member artists and entities that would otherwise have derived royalties from the songs had I gone out and bought extra copies (or a hypothetical commercial compilation) of them. So far, so good—I get to listen to these songs at my own convenience and in any combination. I pay for this privilege, and the artists and writers (and their distributors) of the songs get paid. Sounds fair, doesn¹t it? But the digital revolution has totally trashed this equation. Used to be that a copy of a digital song was always inherently inferior to its source: analog tape is, well, analog; DAT is still tape, flimsy and vulnerable to damage; minidisc is sonically notched and compressed (albeit imperceptibly to the average listener) so though still digital it is no longer an exact copy. However, computer-burned (or studio-grade standalone CD recorder-burned) CDs and MP3s are exact clones of their sources, with no degradation. Thus, it is possible for one purchase to replicate itself endlessly and reach an infinite number of end users either for free or a fee to the middleman (read bootlegger), and both the creator and disseminator of the source material get paid for only the first level of sale. Doesn¹t sound very fair to me. Now, consider the following: How many times have you been charmed by a song or two on a CD, plunked down fifteen bucks, and found out the rest of the album has the artistic value of a drink coaster? How many times have you first bought and then lost, damaged, or had stolen a record? Does it seem fair to have to pay in effect double for the right to play it no more often than you would have were it still in your possession? And how about those songs you just can¹t buy for love or money: the collaboration on a TV variety or awards show; the live in-studio radio performance (assuming it¹s not available on a station¹s own compilation disc); the concert performance by a band that approves of "fan taping;" and most importantly, that song by a struggling artist with neither a record-company subsidy nor the wherewithal to record and distribute it on a wide geographic scale, who uploads it for the express purpose of getting it heard? This brings us, of course, to Napster, Scour, Gnutella, and their offspring. The potential exists for not only tremendous exposure for all artists and obviating the necessity to pay for 18 albums to get only 18 songs, but also for financial disaster for the recording industry (leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether it¹s an amoral, money grubbing bloodsucker that feeds on its artists and spits out the bones) and the actual creators of the music. Clearly, something must be done to ensure fairness to the consumer, the disseminator, and especially the creator of the music—and regardless of his or her motive, the creator of the engines that made such sharing possible. Yes, writing code is also work and the resulting software is compensable intellectual property. The money to compensate the creators of both the music and its delivery devices has to come from somewhere. I see two possible solutions. First, the one more palatable to the consumer: the Web has exploded in recent years, and not just because users are hungry for information. Let¹s not kid ourselves—there¹s serious money in it. Ads, be they large or small, pop-up or banner, subtle or obnoxious, have become the Internet industry¹s bread and butter, just as they are for broadcast media. Revenue generated by ads on Napster and its ilk could be spread to host and music creator/disseminator alike. More importantly, they¹d keep down the cost to the consumer. Yes, I said cost to the consumer. Get used to it—remember what I said about a free lunch. Just as it is unfair to make artists accept nothing for something, it is also unfair to entitle consumers to acquire something for nothing. But such cost would be quite nominal—either a per-download charge far less than the purchase price of a single (be it today¹s cassette/CD or yesteryear¹s 45 RPM) or a modest one-time or annual fee to use the download site; both of which, contrasted with the onerous cost of buying an armload of CDs to get a handful of songs, would be minimal, indeed. The other alternative is to raise the price of the original source material; but this would neither help the struggling artist whose online music is its only forum nor place an appropriate value on those otherwise unpurchasable songs mentioned earlier. It¹s a compromise for sure, but one in which each side gets more than it gives. Under the status quo, however, everybody loses: the uncompensated artists and the consumer—once these technologies are eventually declared illegal and a way is found to dismantle them. One more sermon, and I promise I¹ll finish: Just because something is available doesn¹t make it legal, and just because something has not yet been declared illegal doesn¹t make it ethical. That¹s my $6.89 (two cents, adjusted for inflation). Whether you agree or disagree, I'd love to hear from you. Who knows, with your permission I may give you equal time in this space! Main Page • Additional Installments • Contact Sandy Copyright © 2000, Sandy Andina, All Rights Reserved |
|
